Time for malicious compliance: "Kids, today we’re talking about two girls got their dad drunk and raped him to get pregnant.
They’ll have to be more creative, because the demand is for teachers to tell kids about the Bible’s place in U.S. history.
So I think teaching them about this might be more appropriate: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/09/674995075/slave-bible-from-the-1800s-omitted-key-passages-that-could-incite-rebellion
They might also teach about this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
Or how about how the bible was used as an excuse to try to keep Americans dumb and ignorant. An excellent example of exactly where the Bible fits into American history.
Unfortunately, these people don’t believe in evolution either.
You say “was” like it’s not ongoing.
They might also teach about this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
Wow, that was an interesting read there! It seems like he may have been an influence on the character “Brother Justin” in the Carnivàle show on HBO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Carnivàle#Brother_Justin_Crowe
deleted by creator
You should hit the erotic poetry section of the Bible, just to be sure you get all the good parts in.
So I have friends in Texas who have lost their license for one reason or another. This has a wider range of effect than most realize. When applying for ANY other state licensing, in any other industry, the fact that your teaching license was revoked, no matter what the reason was (it won’t say why on reports) it’s a mark against you when applying for others. All they see is oh this person HAD a state license and it got revoked so, maybe we shouldn’t grant this other one.
It’s plainly illegal, and I’m sure the goal is for SCOTUS to take it up and make it legal.
It’s plainly illegal
SCOTUS will just ignore any precedents and give the states the right to do what they want.
We’ve already seen this playbook in action.
We’ve been fools for relying on precedent.
That is certainly their hope. And there is no question it will happen if Trump gets back in.
The goal is, here, to have an accurate view of American history
By teaching bronze age fairy tales set in the Middle East.
Surely this could backfire in so many hilarious ways?
- Teach the parts that conservatives don’t do, and teach your class to call out injustice everywhere.
- Teach the bible in Aramaic or Ancient Hebrew, and give the kids 30 mins of study time to learn whatever they want from it.
- Use it as an exercise to teach that many parts were written thousands of years ago, and doesn’t have current medical or societal advancements, so that many parts might be up to interpretation.
- Compare it to Islam, Judaism, and other sects of Christianity - and teach that they’re basically the same thing and that everyone should get along.
- Reference that the pope said years ago that even nonbelievers that led a good life would be offered a seat in heaven, so be nice and it’ll all be fine.
Also you should explain to your child students what is a prostitute
Tell them about all the fun stuff going on in sodom and gomorrah
You forgot “this is what hard-core Christians believe, this is where it contradicts itself, here are the 10 commandments including love thy neighbor and don’t worship false idols”.
You’ll get de-licensed for teaching that, too
Oh I don’t know that I would make the claim that major world religions are all about people getting along. I’d say we can find some parts that are much less friendly than that.
Why don’t we go back to Genesis. Lot is an exciting character, and tells us a lot about God’s character. And then it gets creepy too.
The funny thing is that a basic understanding of the Bible is actually important for making sense of American history - the people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible and so unless you know at least the major “plot points”, their actions (and a lot of literature) won’t make much sense.
With that said, I don’t trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
he people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible
Depends what era you’re talking about and what you mean by influence. I would say that the reason Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason was so popular and that Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament, which removed the supernatural, suggest that the Bible was less of an influence in the founding of the nation than would be supposed here. The fact that Muhammad is in as venerated a place on the Supreme Court building as Moses also suggests they didn’t think it was the source of all wisdom.
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don’t just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome. They had trial by jury in Ancient Rome. It was a permanent jury, not a jury of one’s peers, but you can see the skeleton of our legal system and how it came from those ancient heathens, not Jesus.
For anyone curious about who shows up on the Supreme Court building
Thank you for that. Incidentally, I have never heard for a big push from Muslims to remove Muhammad from the building, or at least obscure his image. I’m not sure if that’s because they aren’t aware of it or just because it is too old to do anything about it at this point.
I would reckon it’s because it was specifically designed to not be an accurate depiction? Maybe?
I don’t think that has made a difference in other situations.
I think youre right but age or historical importance hasn’t exactly stopped extremists from destroying what they consider blasphemy either
That’s why I’m wondering if they just aren’t aware.
I think you are really glossing over the work of Thomas Aquinas. It’s kind of hard to separate the Rome/Greek stuff from the historical Christianity stuff before modern day Evangelical Fundamentalism. Christian thought historically became very linked to Greek philosophy.
In what way was Thomas Aquinas an important influence on the founding of the United States and in what way would that be appropriate to teach elementary school kids?
It’s not appropriate for an elementary school kids. Per the article, this applies to grades 5 through 12. So what, 1 year of elementary with the primary focus of impact on junior high and high school?
But if you are getting into questions of “what was more important to our founding fathers, rome or christianity?” I’d say that’s pretty difficult to separate because of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas that married Greek Philosophy with Christianity. When you begin with a point that God is the source of reason, and build off of that, I think you can’t easily separate that out.
No, I asked in what way Thomas Aquinas contributed to the founding of the U.S. It seems like your reasoning is pretty damn indirect and it’s even more indirectly related to the Bible, so this law does not apply.
And it either isn’t appropriate for elementary school or it should be taught in the fifth grade (also, sixth grade is still elementary school in many districts). Which is it?
You said this:
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don’t just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome.
this statement says nothing about what should be taught in schools, it’s a statement of history. my statement is simply stating it is very difficult to separate out the roman influence from the christian influence because of thomas aquinas linking christian tradition to greek thought. I would say that from a intellectual POV, founding fathers were probably equally or more influenced by greeks than romans, but at the end of the day we can just call it all classical thought. that’s pretty apparent in our architecture of state houses. This is a tangential discussion where we are not discussing what should be taught in schools, but just historical thought in the USA. Please re-read your own to catch up on the conversation topic.
My statement was made within the context of the article I posted. I’m not sure why you think I would have made it otherwise.
I have a lot of friends who, like me grew, up going to church. Some went to catholic high schools, some went to liberal arts colleges with required religions classes in the core curriculum, or had other exposure. None of us go to church in our adulthood and have no intention starting when we have kids. But we all want our kids to have an understanding of what Christianity is because it’s important for understanding American history, origins of non profit institutions, and contemporary political and cultural climate. Also want to ensure there’s exposure and understanding of Judaism, Islam, and other predominant religions. Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest I remember in school we studied Native American cultures which included some exposure to myth and religion. I wish there was a way schools could touch on modern religions in a more neutral way, perhaps more similar to how we teach classics/greek mythology.
Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
The same way I did in my public middle school in the 90s and the same way my daughter did in her social studies class last year- by teaching comparative religion and attempting to do so without bias. And at no point was I or was she taught that the Bible was one of the important founding documents for our nation, since it wasn’t and that’s not true.
If we read any passages from the Bible or the Quran during that class, I don’t remember them. My daughter’s class did not have them. And yet we now both have enough understanding of those religions to be able to put them within a historical framework.
There’s a lot of truth in that but your second point is the reason why it’s still a terrible, terrible idea.
I’m so fucking tired of the US. Shit just always seems to get worse, and for every little victory, we take another huge leap towards a fascist theocracy.
I like to tell myself that these are the death throes of a dying ideology.
Oh yes, one way or the other. Things are certainly crashing, and the question is what will happen in the aftermath.
I really hope you’re right…
they’d face the same consequences as one who refuses to teach about the Civil War
Now I’m really afraid to find out what this includes
Can I teach ANY part of the bible?
Do the Song of Solomon.
Oh I can’t wait for the lawsuits to follow this bullshit.
I’m still pissed we are spending tax payer money defending this shit. We are doing something similar in La.
As much as it sucks, at least it’s being adjudicated.
I fear what the fedsoc six will do with it. They already want a theocracy.
Get a poverty pony and some ammo.
Poverty pony?
Inexpensive AR. Typically bought in pieces. You can get a basic rifle pretty inexpensively.
Looking at recent decisions, it’s going to go badly for those of us who believe in the anti-establishment clause.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
I think this would be a 5-4 decision with SCOTUS. I think Barrett would be against it, because she is Catholic and would see that her beliefs may not be the ones promoted. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be a toss up.
Kavenaugh has been better than expected (still bad). Actually, all of the Trump appointments have been less-bad than Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. If it weren’t for the fact that Kavenaugh replaced Kennedy and Barret RBG it wouldn’t be so bad.
The good news is that the next 2 up for replacement are probably Thomas and Alito. If we can hold onto the White House we may be able to unfuck this.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
Reading one piece of the Constitution or the text of any specific statute is kind of useless in our legal system. Other parts of the Constitution, the laws, and the case law that’s been established over centuries and decades also have parts to play.
This particular legal situation has been argued before, and it’s very settled law (at least for now.) Specifically, the 14th Amendment has been viewed to expand many of the Constitutional provisions that originally only restrained Congress to apply to the state governments as well.
It’s most likely to be slapped down in district court, slapped down in the appellate court, and then declined by SCOTUS.
What they failed to realise is teachers can have a unique ability to make kids hate a subject.
If you force them to do it, they can do it really badly without it being obvious.
I can imagine reading the Bible word for for in monotone from day 1 won’t be a good experience.
Just read only the parts about incest and rape and waiting for all the parents to complain
Any of you remember Kitzmiller v. Dover? It was a case that essentially ruled that teaching ID/creationism was a theological doctrine and thus couldn’t be included in the biology curriculum of schools across the country. While the issues here at not the same (teaching creationsim vs mandatory bible studies), they have the same ideological underpinnings. Unless we’re talking about Sunday school*, schools must remain secular institutions where discussions of religions are from a neutral perspective in regards to the humanities. As to regards to a hypothetical Supreme Court case: considering how ultra-conservative the Supreme Court has become in recent years, I fear that they might side the theocrats.
*Are those still a thing?
Sunday school is not a public institution, which is why it gets a pass. Similarly private schools are free to do this all week long.
I think even this supreme Court would rule the correct way. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were even unanimous, but at worst I’d expect the 6/3 split with Thomas, Goraych, and Alito. There’s only so far they can go when the Constitution was very blatantly clear on this matter.
And we should let it get a pass. Sunday School is the place to teach kids about the Bible. That’s what it’s for. That’s not what public school should be for. If parents want to indoctrinate their kids into religion, there’s no really effective way to stop it. But at least we can tamper it by keeping it out of our schools.
Agreed, and further to point out they even have private schools if they feel so compelled to indoctrinate every day of the week, we let them do that too and even allow them to claim equal credentials to a publicly regulated institution.
Every time Democrats have an opportunity to increase the number of seats on the SCOTUS, they punt.
I wonder if the thinking is that once the proverbial seal on that lid is broken, the next administration would just Uno-reverse it by adding more of its preferred justices?
And, it’s not like (aside from the first two damn years when it should have been done) they had a trifecta; although you could be assured Manchin or Senema(?) would have fucked them over.
Setting aside the fact that this would require a Senate majority, that’s not even the worst outcome.
A broader spectrum of conservative judges means they need to triangulate across their generational and niche personal views. There is legit some amount of political space between Gorduch, Roberts, ACB, Judge Likes Beer, Uncle Thomas, and Discount Scalia.
Adding three more of them to match three more liberal judges means even more dissonance.
And who knows? Maybe we even start getting judges who didn’t fall directly out of the Harvard pipeline.
I think the reason the Democrats haven’t tried to add members is the same reason that they didn’t mean to coin to handle the debt ceiling and they didn’t bother to either use or destroy the filibuster.
Many entrenched Democrats in Washington are happy to be the second worst party. That’s their identity. And it makes sense if you consider their funding source. Big money comes from big companies, and they give it to people who will represent their interests.
deleted by creator
And this is the same cunt that was blaming “the radical left” for “politicizing” the death of a child under his care. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/oklahoma-nonbinary-student-superintendent.html
I am sorry no. I don’t want this garbage taught in schools.
Pretty messed up of Ryan.
I keep my eye out for him in public around here just so I can get an assault charge, but I’ve yet to cross that little rat.
That’s his m.o.
